Record labels would be able to yank their music off U.S. radio airwaves under federal legislation introduced on Wednesday.

That means hits by Taylor Swift, Drake, Adele or Miranda Lambert would be taken down if their record labels choose to do so. The bill was filed by U.S. Reps. Darrell Issa, R-California, and Ted Deutch, D-Florida.

It's a controversial proposal. Current U.S. copyright law gives broadcast companies the right to play any song they like, but only music publishers and songwriters get paid.

Record labels and artists have been pushing for years to have a performance royalty created for terrestrial radio. Last week, a bi-partisan Fair Play Fair Pay Act was reintroduced to create the performance royalty.

Broadcast companies have argued that there is substantial promotional value when they play an artist's songs, talk about their upcoming album releases and nearby concert performances. Traditional radio is still the No. 1 form of music discovery in many genres, according to experts.

Issa and Deutch's bill gives record labels the right to decide whether the promotional value outweighs the fact they don't get paid. Internet radio and streaming companies like Pandora, Apple Music and Spotify pay record labels when their songs are used. The bill has been dubbed the PROMOTE Act, which stands for Performance Royalty Owners of Music Opportunity To Earn Act.

“The PROMOTE Act calls the bluff of both sides in the debate over performance rights," Issa said. "The terrestrial stations playing these works without compensating the artists argue that airtime provides exposure and promotional value, while the artists argue the status quo allows radio stations to profit on artists' performances without providing any due compensation.

"Our bill puts forward a workable solution that would allow those who would otherwise be paid a performance right to opt out of allowing broadcasters to play their music if they feel they’re not being appropriately compensated. This is a win-win that helps solve this decades' long problem in a way that’s fair to both parties."

Deutch said it it is unfair that artists haven't been able to choose if their songs are played on the radio.

"It should be the artist’s choice whether to offer their music for free in exchange for promotional play, or to instead opt out of the unpaid use of their music," Deutch said. "I am proud to join my colleague Rep. Issa in introducing the PROMOTE Act to give recording artists more control over their work.”

It is significant that Issa and Deutch are the key sponsors of the legislation, because they are members of the crucial House Judiciary Committee, which is said to be on the brink of introducing widespread copyright reform legislation. A performance royalty for radio has always been a sticking point, so their legislation could serve as the catalyst for the recording industry and broadcast companies to negotiate.

While Congress has been deadlocked for many years on the issue, record labels, including Nashville's Big Machine Label Group, have struck their own deals with some radio companies. Under those deals, Big Machine gave the broadcasters a break on their digital royalty rates in exchange for creating a new radio royalty.

The Fair Play Fair Pay Act would also require broadcasters to pay artists and labels.

Broadcasters have pushed back ferociously. They have annually introduced a memorializing resolution co-signed by dozens of members of Congress opposing creating the new royalty.

In prepared remarks on Wednesday, Cary Sherman, the chairman and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America applauded the proposal from Issa and Deutch.

"The PROMOTE Act gets back to the basic notion of consent before property is taken," Sherman said. "We look forward to working with the Chairman, Rep. Deutch, and their colleagues on finally resolving the performance rights loophole.”

It was only relatively recently that I was reading a 1956 Broadcasting textbook that spoke of the chain of events that began with ASCAP's huge increase in rates that radio stations would be required to pay:

Between 1931 and 1939, ASCAP increased royalty rates charged to broadcasters more than 400%....In 1940, when ASCAP tried to double its license fees again, radio broadcasters formed a boycott of ASCAP...BMI was founded by the National Association of Broadcasters to provide a lower-cost alternative to ASCAP....BMI sought out artists that ASCAP tended to overlook or ignore. BMI also purchased the rights to numerous catalogs held by independent publishers or whose ASCAP contracts were about to expire.(from Wikipedia ASCAP and BMI entries)

Although a very different situation, the point remains the same: the law of unintended consequences will undoubtedly raise its ugly head if Rights Holders get greedy.

jon wrote:It was only relatively recently that I was reading a 1956 Broadcasting textbook that spoke of the chain of events that began with ASCAP's huge increase in rates that radio stations would be required to pay

I thought they got paid royalties for every "play" of a song on terrestrial radio, just like Internet streaming? #shocked

If not, I'd actually support this, provided regulatory conditions are put into place to prohibit the payment of incentives of the music industry to radio station owners to give more airtime to their artists, to prevent a repeat of that earlier scandal.